2008 global financial crisis

artilily  asked:

you might've already covered this, but i was listening to the radio and heard there was a documentary called "Small Enough to Jail" about a Chinatown bank run by Chinese immigrants being scapegoated for the entire 2008 mortgage crisis and figured i'd ask. apparently it was on the radio bc Justin Lin is planning on directing a movie based on it?

I didn’t cover it but thanks for bringing it up. From Deadline:

Justin Lin will develop to direct a film based on the 2016 Toronto Film Festival documentary Abacus: Small Enough To Jail, about how a Chinatown bank run by a Chinese immigrant family because the only U.S. bank to face criminal charges in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that crippled the global economy. 

Perfect Storm Entertainment has optioned the docu and story rights to the Sung Family to tell the story of its fight for justice after it was scapegoated by prosecutors and accused of mortgage fraud by the Manhattan District Attorney. Meanwhile, giant institutions that wrecked the economy somehow got away unscathed from law enforcement. The Sung family waged a five year legal battle to defend itself and its legacy in the Chinatown community.

It’s ironic how white America knew exactly who was responsible for the crisis but decided to go after some random Chinese bank. The bank was eventually acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence (obviously because they know who did it) but it goes to show how white America will play the victim and point fingers elsewhere.

Angry Asian Guy

Republicans, Wall Street score victory in dismantling class-action rule
Banks, credit card issuers and other financial companies will be able to block customers from banding together to sue over disputes, after the U.S. Senate on Tuesday narrowly killed a rule banning the firms from using "forced arbitration" clauses.
By Devin Coldewey

The oligarchs #GOPdonors have spoken. 99%, get ready for the Age of Plutocracy.

The CFPB was established by Dodd–Frank in response to the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis created by America’s banks. Guess who signed the bill? Obama. Guess who hates Obama? Trump and Republicans want to kill / dismantle the CFPB.

Equifax victims, you’re DOA. What chance does an individual have against the $, lawyers and politicians of a Megacorp?

The vote was 50/50, the tie breaking vote was cast by Vice President Mike Pence.

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives has already passed the resolution repealing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule released in July

“The resolution also bars regulators from instituting a similar ban in the future.”

After a signature from Trump, expected soon, the resolution will abruptly end a years-long fight that has included multiple federal regulators, consumer advocacy groups, and financial lobbyists.

literallyizik-deactivated201609  asked:

Why do people dislike globalisation if it allows humans to exchange ideas and pushes the market, like an anarchist idea could reach other countries?

As Noam Chomsky stated in 2002: The term “globalization” has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the “free trade agreements” as “free investment agreements” (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as “anti-globalization”; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. 

No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity—that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.

On the contrary, Neoliberal globalization conceives of the market and private capital as the main drivers for the “restructuring of economic, political and life” (this view is commonly associated with the economic principles espoused by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her US counterpart Ronald Reagan).

Marx, in his 1867 work “Capital: Critique of Political Economy”, raised the idea of the fallibility of fetishism, including an “attribution of magical powers to the ‘global market’ as the Chief Good of all human action”. This theme became present to the so called ‘anti-globalization’ activists for the concerns regarding the inequity and commodification apparently necessary for the capitalist system to thrive.

After a decade of TINA (There is No Alternative) indoctrination, a momentous backlash emerged in the 1990s. Activists representing global civil society began to protest, with the intent to expose the internal conflicts and failures within a system that allowed the propagation of global stratification. This principally entailed targeting “large multinational corporations and the governments and international institutions at the service of those corporations’ interests”. Drawing global attention to the inequalities existing between the “core and periphery” of the global order, alter-globalization began to articulate visions for a more democratic future.

Organized and gathered around The World Social Forum (in the form of transnational protest summits and international democratic meetings), activists offered a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future through the championing of counter-hegemonic globalization, a strategy for revolutionary social transformation extracted to create counter-hegemony. 

The unprecedented changes in the global economy - what some commentators have defined as “turbo-capitalism” (Edward Luttwak), “market fundamentalism” (George Soros), “casino capitalism” (Susan Strange), and as “McWorld” (Benjamin Barber) - have been catalysts of a fundamental protest movement in Seattle in 1999. The mobilization on November 30, 1999, known as The battle of Seattle, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in the State of Washington, helped define and put together the modern alter-globalization movement.

Activists were convinced that the WTO would be used by transnational corporate influencers as a forum in which to advance the global corporate agenda to the detriment of worldwide civil society and especially the interests of third-world countries. According to Ronnie Hall, trade campaigner at Friends of the Earth International, “The WTO seems to be on a crusade to increase private profit at the expense of all other considerations, including the well-being and quality of life of the mass of the world’s people.”

Since then, counter-globalization activists call for forms of global integration that better provide democratic representation, advancement of human rights, decentralization and sustainable development and therefore feel the term “anti-globalization” is misleading. Hence the more precise definition of ‘Alter Globalization’ or New Global movement.

What is shared is that participants oppose what they see as large, multi-national corporations having unregulated political power, exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets. Specifically, corporations are accused of seeking to maximize profit at the expense of work safety conditions and standards, labor hiring and compensation standards, environmental conservation principles, and the integrity of national legislative authority, independence and sovereignty. 

The Porto Alegre Manifesto is a proposal for social change produced at the 2005 World Social Forum. It outlines “twelve proposals, which its authors believe, together, give sense and direction to the construction of another, different world.“ The signatures of the manifesto (so-called “Group of Nineteen”); signatories are Aminata Traoré, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Eduardo Galeano, José Saramago, François Houtart, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Armand Mattelart, Roberto Savio, Riccardo Petrella, Ignacio Ramonet, Bernard Cassen, Samir Amin, Atilio Boron, Samuel Ruiz Garcia, Tariq Ali, Frei Betto, Emir Sader, Walden Bello, and Immanuel Wallerstein.

Economic measures are: 

  • 1. Debt cancellation for southern countries. 
  • 2. Implement international tax on financial transactions, i.e., Tobin tax. 
  • 3. Dismantle all tax havens and corporate havens (described as “paradises”). 
  • 4. Universal right to employment, social protection and pensions. 
  • 5. Promote fair trade and reject all free trade agreements and World Trade Organization laws, emphasizing the importance of education, health, social services and cultural rights over commercial rights. 
  • 6. Guarantee of food security to all countries by promoting rural, peasant agriculture. 
  • 7. Outlaw patenting of knowledge on living things and privatization of “common goods for humanity”, i.e., water. 

Peace and justice:

  • 8. Use public policies to fight discrimination, sexism, xenophobia, antisemitism and racism and fully recognize the political, cultural and economic rights of indigenous peoples. 
  • 9. Take steps to end environmental destruction and the greenhouse effect using alternative development models. 
  • 10. Dismantle all foreign military bases and the removal of troops from all countries except those under the explicit mandate of the United Nations. 


  • 11. Guarantee the right to information and the right to inform through legislation that would end concentration of media ownership, guarantee the autonomy of journalists, and favor alternative media. 
  • 12. Reform international institutions based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and incorporate the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and WTO into the United Nations.

Two events must be highlighted since the turn of the century to provide historical context to alter-globalization’s current political challenge.
Despite significant moments occurred in the 1990s have provided a foundation for the movement’s rise, two events in particular severely altered the movement’s direction.

The first is the summit of the heads of government of the 8 major industrialized countries, held in Genoa on Friday, July 20 to Sunday July 22. In the earlier days, the anti-globalization movements and peace associations gave rise to demonstrations of dissent, followed by serious riots, with clashes between police and protesters. The police charges were as violent as unjustified, coming to a nocturne assault against the innocent hosted in school Diaz; the activists were massacred without mercy. Other protesters were abused and beaten in the barracks of Bolzaneto, just outside Genoa. The death of 22 years old autonomist Carlo Giuliani, which was shot in the head by italian police, was a point of no return for the movement. 
What Amnesty International called “the most serious suspension of democratic rights in a Western country since the Second World War”, was nothing more than the most ferocious face of global capitalism, which approached Genoa with the clear intention to destroy once for all a movement always more dangerous for its continuous growth.

The latter is the historical breakdown of neo-imperial coercion in the years following September 11, 2001. The assault to confidence globally in the prosperity of the neo-liberalist world consequent of ‘9/11’ appeared to provide apposite timing for activists who fought against this hegemony, supporting the creation of the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001. However, the global atmosphere of uncertainty in the aftermath of September 11 allowed labels of terrorism and disloyalty to be ascribed to such activists. This significantly undermined the legitimacy of the demands of anti-globalization. 

Moreover, the Global Justice Movement has experienced shortcomings in mounting a challenge to the dominant ranks of the international political, social and economic world order. Above all it was the lack of a common interpretation of the movement’s objectives that hindered its search for an alternative hegemonic ideology resulting in the absence of a centralizing element to unify disparate voices. 

Although the life of the Social Forum has continued until 2013, many activists spread out in other movements such as those against austerity in Europe and finance in the US (Occupy Wall Street).

The renewed feeling of urgency ensuing the 2008 ‘Global Financial Crisis’ (GFC) sparked attention towards finding a ‘humane heir’ to neoliberal globalization. This crisis, as it was predicted to “consume the real economy of jobs and welfare,” was argued to be an opportunity for social movement to get their foot in the door. However, while the dominant global arrangements fell into crisis, the failure to conceive a rapid and popular alternative, the sudden state support to the banks, the splitting of the working class and the triumph of media propaganda, resulted in an elitist reaction retaining its dominance, which was favorable to capital becoming dominant in the aftermath of the Global Crisis.

Nevertheless the hegemony that the alter-globalization movement contended (the existing dominance of the dismantling of the welfare state and privatization introduced by Reagan and Thatcher) is tied to the struggle against the financial austerity measures within the current Global Financial Crisis, that have caused ubiquitous inequities to pervade the global structure. 
In this sense you have to consider the movement which opposes capitalist globalization, and favor an alternative form of globalization based on new values, not as finished but as constantly able to upgrade and reappear according to new global challenges.

Another World Is Possible!

Now fellow Europeans I am so fucking angry

I am rather disappointed at France. 25% of the population were in favor of the FN, the far-right wing. Voting far-right wing at the European elections is such a paradox, and I can’t believe that some people actually believed what Marine LePen (the party’s president) said. 

Also, did you know that she refused to participate to a debate with Martin Schultz, the president of the European Parliament? She knew that he was more than able to deconstruct all her arguments. 

Moreover, should I remind you what the former party’s president, Mrs LePen’s dad declared over the years? 

  • He admitted to have tortured criminals.
  • He said that people who suffered AIDS were lepers.
  • He thinks that the Holocaust is a small part, a detail of WWII, that has never been proved. 
  • He treated the LGBT+ community of deviants. 
  • He met Karadzic when he was seeked for Genocide in Yougoslavia and declared that “it was not his duty to look after war criminals”. 
  • In 2012, he declared that the French people was to be “white, from greek and latine culture and christians”. 

He is a racist and an anti-Semite. Now 25% of France voted for this party, that is his heritage. 

Well this is so sad and I am so fucking angry!

Now, just a little reminder, in 1929 the world experienced a global financial crisis, Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Now, when did we experienced a global financial crisis? In 2008, we are 6 years after and guess what? Nationalists parties are winning elections or rising all over Europe. Can’t we learn a little bit from the past? Just for once?!

Edit: I know it is not 25% of the France population, but 25% of the people who voted. However, people who didn’t vote are not even part of the system for me. And anyway it is even more alarming since the majority of the population don’t even care about Europe and won’t even move their ass to vote, which is a privilege that not all the countries in the world have by the way. 

anonymous asked:

ppl didn't want to vote for hillary because obama hasn't done anything to create more jobs, and hillary's policies are similar. some people are so desperate that they're willing to vote for anyone who says they'll do something different. they figure that all the rest doesn't matter as long as the economy gets fixed.

at least trump is going to try new things instead of repeating the policies that haven’t fixed anything

Yesterday the Labour Party (the main opposition party in the UK) elected Jeremy Corbyn as its new Leader.   He does veer extremely to the left which in this country in this day and age could be detrimental to the chances of them getting into power even though he favours anti-austerity, is pro the NHS, is against

However there are matters of national security to deal with, the refugee crisis, our own country’s failure to properly recover from the global financial crisis of 2008, poverty and a real divide between North and South and so very much more but what does our Prime Minister tweet?

I cannot believe we’re stuck with them for the next 5 years.